No published Australian figure for latent-condition claims missed, rejected or time-barred, or for ground-risk cost

What it is. None - eight Australian sources opened, none measures latent-condition claims or their cost as a share of contract value, a cost per claim, or the share rejected for lack of notice.

Sample. Search terms: latent conditions claims Australia cost share of contract value; differing site conditions variations percentage; ground risk cost infrastructure Australia; latent conditions time bar notice empirical study; ANAO contract variations latent conditions; Austroads variations by cause; Australian Constructors Association risk allocation survey; underground utility strikes cost Australia. Frequencies found, none a cost: in the Infrastructure Australia market sounding survey 44% of government and 38% of private executives said latent ground risk should be shared and 8% of government executives said the private sector should bear it (Section 4.9, p.47). Sources that could not be opened and so are not counted: a Queensland TMR road-variations thesis (Purvis 2015, host unreachable), the Before You Dig Australia 2024 utility-strike assessment (403), Austlii judgments (403).

What it is not. Recorded as `none` on purpose. No source we could open reports how often latent-condition claims are made, how many fail for lack of notice, or what ground risk costs as a share of contract value. The Sydney CBD Light Rail overrun (about $1bn, about 50% of project value, Infrastructure Australia Section 4.7) is one contested NSW project driven mainly by utilities and is owner-side, so it is not filed as a figure.

Where it came from

• Infrastructure Australia (2021), A National Study of Infrastructure Risk
  Section 4.2 and Figures 5 and 6 (who should bear latent geotechnical risk); Section 4.7 (utilities and relocation risk); Section 4.9 'Unpredictable ground conditions', p.47 and Figure 28 · source record

Considered and set aside

• Love, Zhou, Edwards, Irani & Sing: 16 Australian rail projects by one contractor; scope changes drove the cost increase and the text names underground-utility relocation as a cause, but gives no latent-condition cost or share.
• Love, Irani, Smith, Regan & Liu: 67 public infrastructure projects; change orders of 10.6% of contract value are reported in total. The paper says analysing the nature of change orders is outside its remit and observes only that scope changes and documentation errors predominated, so there is no latent-condition category.
• Terrill, Coates & Danks (Grattan Institute): 836-project national overrun dataset measured from the first announced cost; owner-side money and no split by cause, so ground conditions cannot be isolated.
• Queensland Parliament, Minister for Transport and Main Roads: Names latent conditions among reasons for variations on Queensland road contracts and gives net variations in total ($753.7m on $8.87bn awarded); no split by reason, and Queensland only.
• Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts: $32.8bn of known cost pressures across the federal pipeline, not split by cause and not independently verified by the review; government money.
• Arcadis with the Australian Constructors Association: Contractors' absorbed market price escalation after variations and extensions of time; a perception survey on prices, not ground conditions, with no respondent count.
• Hasib & Al-Kilidar (University of Technology Sydney): 28 respondents ranking 59 delay causes; ground conditions were not among the causes surveyed and no cost is measured.
• Transport for NSW: Transport for NSW's general requirements for major civil contracts; a search of its full text found no latent-condition clause or rate, and it holds contract terms, not outcomes.

forfeited_entitlements/latent_conditions_none_au · AU · F42 ·the record ·link to this figure ·dispute this figure(or email support@demiton.io)